CR2(raw) on 60 D

Hi everyone.

Say i shoot two exactly the same photos, same lens on in M-RAW(medium raw)
and one in L-RAW(large raw) what advantage is there if i resize bothe files afterwards in CS% using "image size " option.

And how does S-Raw (small raw compare to these two).

I know there is a difference in the file dimentions, but the image quality when all are resized to the same dimention, will a difference be noted at all ?
Or do I only shoot in L-Raw if I really need that big dimention say for a large size printing ect.


Thank you for helping this rookie


Delko

Since storage is cheap, it just makes sense to me to record the most data possible. As you say you can always resize smaller, no matter how large the staring RAW image, but making a smaller one larger is not as easy, nor will it be as good as it would be if you had started with a maximum size raw data file. Once you have removed information from the image, or not recorded that information in the first place, it can't truly be replaced. There are programs which can do a more or less decent job of guessing at what should be added when enlarging, but the result won't be as good as if the photo had be recorded in its largest size to start with.

If all you ever do is convert to smallish jpegs, then it probably doesn't matter, but you also don't give yourself the opportunity to change your mind at a later date.

Examine page 85 of the 60D manual, specifically the "Printing Size" column for your answer.

The column indicates the following for Printing Size:

RAW = A2 or larger
M RAW = "around" A3
S RAW = "around" A4

Now the "A" sizes are defined by ISO 216 which defines each size as follows:
A2 = 23.4 x 16.5 inches (594 x 420mm)
A3 = 16.5 x11.7 inches (420 x 297mm)
A4 = 11.7 x 8.3 inches (297 x 210mm)

So, in theory, and very much from a practical standpoint, if all you ever print is 4 x 6 inch prints at the corner drugstore then yes you could get by with S RAW since it can yield an image "around A4" or 11.7 x 8.3 inches (297 x 210mm). But once you have the S RAW image, should it be absolutely fantastic you won't make a decent poster size print. What isn't there just can't be recovered. Hence the reason to best shoot with just the RAW setting, the absolute best in quality, then downsize as required. You'll also find that you can stuff a lot of images on a card even at that setting. My 16 GB card, on a 60D, can store about 500 images (RAW + JPEG). If you must sacrifice on image quality as saved, set a small JPEG. You can always generate a large one if needed from the "large" RAW.

Maybe you should think about your reasons for buying the 60D if you only ever get from it images that you could get from a $300 camera.

at the moment im shooting at medium raw, but i think im gona start shooting the lArgest i can in otherwords no more MRAW but RAW

thank you for the help

I shoot RAW almost exclusively and never use the M-RAW or S-RAW sizes at all. Doesn't make sense to me to reduce the size... the reason I'm shooting RAW is to capture as much info as possible and have as much control over the images as possible in post processing.

The only possible reason I can think of to shoot the smaller RAW files would be if memory cards were in seriously short supply and I still needed to keep shooting. But in that case I might just switch to JPEGs and get by with those, instead. There's as much or more savings in storage space with JPEGs.

I also use Adobe RGB, though my final images often end up sRGB depending upon how they'll be used. I'd rather capture as much info/data as possible, then convert the images later.

Changing the size in Photoshop doesn't effect the original CR2 (RAW) image file at all... It only effects the PSD, TIFF, JPEG, BMP, PNG or whatever you save the file as when you are done working on it.

Canon's reason for implementing the different smaller RAW sizes was that sometimes you may want all the latitude in post-processing as RAW files offer, but you don't intend to print large images, or perhaps only post then on the web, where screen have 2 megapixel resolutions anyway.

Whether anyone actually does this, that's a different question.